The Visking Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 22, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 59 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

THE VISKING CORPORATION 59
THE VISKING CORPORATION 1 and CHICAGO JOURNEYMEN PLUMBERS
LOCAL UNION No. 130 , U. A., AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 13-RC-
2168. October 22, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Helene Zogg, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act 2
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all plumbers and helpers, pipefitters
and helpers, and lead burners and helpers, at the Employer's Chicago,
Illinois, plant, excluding all other employees and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act. In the alternative, the Petitioner seeks two separate
units composed of (1) all plumbers and helpers and pipefitters and
helpers, excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in
the Act and (2) all lead burners and helpers, excluding all other
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. There is no history
of bargaining for the employees involved in this case.3
At its clearing division plant in Chicago, Illinois, the Employer
manufactures seamless cellulose tubing. The production of this cellu-
lose tubing is a continuous chemical process which involves several
steps. In the chemical section of the production department, wood
pulp or cotton linters are mixed with caustic soda. After this mix-
ture is steeped, the excess caustic is pressed out. The mixture is
I The Employer' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Employer contends that no question concerning representation was raised by the
Petitioner ' s letter of January 23, 1952, that the Petitioner does not have sufficient showing
in the units sought, and that the Petitioner 's constitutional jurisdiction prevents it from
adequately representing employees in the proposed units. We find no merit in these
contentions . See Advance Pattern Company, 80 NLRB 29 ; Himes Brothers Dairy Company,
89 NLRB 531 ; The Baldwin Locomotive Works , 76 NLRB 922.
The Employer 's truck drivers are represented for purposes of collective bargaining by a
local of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, AFL.
101 NLRB No. 6.
60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
then shredded and stored in cans for ripening. These cans are then
dumped into rotating drums called barattes and carbon bisulphide is
added. The resulting compound, sodium cellulose xanthate, is
dumped into vissolvers where it is mixed with water and caustic
to form viscose. The viscose is pumped to a ripening room, where
it remains for about 3 days. It is then pumped to the extrusion ma-
chines and extruded under pressure through ring-shaped nozzles,
which are in tanks containing a sulphuric acid solution. The cellu-
lose casing then passes continuously and directly into a dryer, from
which it is wound on steel reels. It usually takes approximately 4
days to complete this process. The casing may then be cut, printed,
wrapped, and packed for shipment.
The clearing division plant is divided into two departments, the pro-
duction department and the engineering department. The engineer-
ing department is further divided into the construction and mainte-
nance, powerhouse, and engineering sections. Each of these sections
is under the separate supervision of a maintenance foreman. The
construction and maintenance section employees include shop crews
and production area crews, each crew being under the immediate su-
pervision of a maintenance foreman.
The Employer contends that the proposed unit is inappropriate,
alleging (1) that there is an industry-wide pattern of plant-wide
bargaining, (2) that there is a high degree of integration between its
production and maintenance operations, and (3) that pipefitting
work is done by many categories of maintenance employees not in-
cluded in the proposed unit.
(1) Bargaining pattern in the industry
The Employer contends that there is a pattern of plant-wide bar-
gaining in the branch of the chemical industry to which it belongs,'
which precludes the establishment in its plant of less than an over-all
unit. While the Board, in denying craft severance, has considered,
among other factors, the existence of a pattern in the industry of
over-all bargaining, that factor is not in itself sufficient to render the
units here sought inappropriate. Moreover, the Board has here-
tofore found a craft unit to be appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining in at least one case involving the branch of the
chemical industry with which the Employer identifies itself .5
(2) The integration of production and maintenance
The Employer contends that the proposed unit is inappropriate
because of the alleged integration of its production and maintenance
The Employer appears to identify itself with that branch of the chemical industry which
employs the viscose process , including production of rayon and cellophane , as well as the
seamless cellulose tubing manufactured by the Employer.
5 Celanese Corporation of America, 80 NLRB 61.
THE VISKING CORPORATION 61
operations. In support of this contention, the Employer relies es-
sentially upon the fact that production employees issue orders for
repairs to the engineering department; in some instances, production
supervisors issue orders directly to maintenance crews; and produc-
tion employees assist maintenance employees in making repairs. Such
assistance, however, does not involve the exercise of any craft skills
by the production employees. These circumstances do not, in our
opinion, establish such a high degree of integration between production
and maintenance as to preclude their establishment as a separate
unit .6
(3) Is the proposed pipefitters' unit a segment of a craft unit?
The Employer contends that pipefitting work is done by employees
other than the pipefitters and their helpers.
The Employer's pipe shop and its equipment are separately located
in a nonenclosed area in the maintenance department. There are
seven employees in the pipe shop, six of whom are rated as general
mechanics and one as a helper. Only two of these employees had
pipefitting experience when hired, one for 5 years and the other for
1 year. The employee with 5 years' experience was initially employed
at the journeyman's rate. The rest did not receive a journeyman
rating until they had worked as helpers for 4 or 5 years. All of these
employees perform only pipefitter's work, which includes cleaning,
cutting, threading, fitting, and installing pipe and pipelines of various
sizes and under diverse conditions. This work is accomplished
through the use of the usual tools of the pipefitter's trade. They are
under the direct and immediate supervision of the pipefitter foreman
at all times, whether working in the pipe shop or in the production
area. Although a large percentage of their work is performed in
the production area, these employees do not have any production
duties. The Employer has not adopted a formal apprenticeship pro-
gram for any of its maintenance employees, but each pipefitter has
to spend 4 or 5 years as a helper to an experienced pipefitter before
receiving the journeyman's rate.? We are satisfied from the record
that these employees exercise the usual skills of the pipefitters' craft.
9
The Employer contends also that the continuous nature of its manufacturing process
requires a high degree of coordination between production and maintenance operations.
To forestall costly breakdowns in production equipment , the Employer preschedules a large
part of its maintenance work. However , such factors have not been deemed by the Board
to preclude the establishment of craft units. See Celanese Corporation of America, 84
NLRB 20T ; Sinclair Rubber, Inc., 96 NLRB 220. Moreover , there is a dearth of evidence
in the record as to the extent to which the specific work of the employees sought by the
Petitioner is, in fact, prescheduled.
' The Board has often held that craftsmen may be developed by on -the-job training.
Saco Lowell Shops, 89 NLRB 598.
62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Petitioner is willing to include in this proposed unit the five
nozzle setter mechanics, should the Board find that they perform
pipefitting work a substantial portion of their time. These employees
primarily clean, adjust, and install extrusion machine nozzles. Their
pipefitting work consists of dismantling, cleaning, and reinstalling a
small pipe structure which is adjacent to the extrusion nozzles. This
pipe work can be learned by an employee within 3 or 4 weeks. While
it may take a nozzle setter mechanic 3 or 4 years to become skilled in
the installation of perpendicular nozzles, there is no evidence that
they possess, or exercise, all the skills of the pipefitters' craft. As
their pipefitting work appears to be of a routine and unskilled nature,
we shall exclude them from the unit.
The Petitioner desires that the daytime powerhouse mechanics be
included in the unit, as they perform skilled pipefitting work with
respect to the steam and compressed air pipelines. However, it is
not clear from the record whether all of these employees regularly do
pipefitting work a substantial portion of their time. We will in-
clude in the unit only such of these employees as regularly devote a
substantial part of their time to pipefitting work.,,
The Employer contends that the eight rotating shift mechanics,
two on each 8-hour shift, also perform pipefitting work. The record
discloses that these employees perform various types of repair work
throughout the plant, such as repairing pumps, performing minor
electrical jobs, constructing wooden platforms, replacing worn me-
chanical parts in production machines, and cleaning and installing
extrusion machine nozzles. Their pipe work consists primarily of
repairing minor waterline leaks which occur on the second and third
shifts. They do not work on pipes while the pipefitters are on duty.
The pipe work of the shift mechanics appears to be of a routine and
unskilled nature. We shall, therefore, exclude them from the unit.
The Employer contends that many employees in the production
area crews of the construction and maintenance section do pipefitting
work. Each of these crews is assigned to a production area to repair
and overhaul the machinery located therein. Their pipe work con-
sists of disconnecting, cleaning, and connecting the small pipe assem-
blies which are adjacent to the machines being repaired by them. They
may assist the pipefitters on heavy jobs or during emergencies, but such
assistance is not of a skilled nature. Thus the pipe work performed
by the production area crews is of a routine and unskilled nature and
we shall exclude them from the unit.
The lead burners and helpers are under different supervision and
exercise skills different from those of the pipefitters in the performance
of their work. We shall, therefore, exclude them from the proposed
8 The Ocala Star Banner , 97 NLRB 536; Sun Vaiiey Bus Lines, Inc., 99 NLRB 844.
THE VISKING CORPORATION 63
pipefitters' unit and shall consider their appropriateness as a separate
unit as requested in the alternative by the Petitioner.
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All pipefitters and their helpers
who are assigned to the pipefitters' shop and all daytime powerhouse
mechanics who regularly perform pipefitting work a substantial por-
tion of their time, excluding all other employees and supervisors as
defined in the Act .9
The Proposed Lead Burners' Unit
Four employees are presently assigned to the lead burners' shop,
which is an enclosed area in the maintenance department. Two of
these employees are first-class lead burners, one is a class B lead burner
and one is a lead burner helper. These employees perform the highly
skilled operation of fabricating, installing, maintaining, and repairing
lead equipment. No other employees of the Company perform lead
burning work. They do a substantial part of their work in the lead
burners' shop. They also work on the lead lining of tanks and other
equipment located throughout the production area. These employees
are supervised by the assistant foreman of the construction and main-
tenance section. Although the nature of their employment brings the
lead burners in close contact with other maintenance employees and
production employees, they perform only lead burning work except
in emergencies or when, as infrequently happens, there is a dearth of
lead burning work. Other maintenance employees and production
employees may assist the lead burners on a heavy job, but their services
are not of a skilled nature and the lead burners are at all times clearly
distinguishable from these other employees.
We find that the lead burners and helpers, excluding all other em-
ployees and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act1°
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
9 Merck & Co., Inc., 88 NLRB 975; Hughes Tool Company, 88 NLRB 1039 . We do not
make a unit finding as to plumbers , as no employees so classified are employed at the
clearing division plant.
In Monsanto Chemical Company, 78 NLRB 1249, the Board found inappropriate the
pipefitters ' unit sought to be severed by the petitioner in that case because of the absence
of any clear line of demarcation in work , experience , and skill between the employees sought
to be included and other employees sought to be excluded . However, in the instant case,
the employees whom the Petitioner would exclude from the unit do not possess or exercise
skills comparable to those of the employees whom the Petitioner is willing to include.
11 E. I. DuPont de Nemours d Co., Inc., 72 NLRB 361.